Genomic analysis of non-splenic marginal zone lymphomas (MZL) indicates similarities between nodal and extranodal MZL and supports their derivation from memory B-cells

Three distinct categories of marginal zone lymphomas (MZLs) are currently recognized, principally based on their site of occurrence. They are thought to represent unique entities, but the relationship of one subtype with another is poorly understood. We investigated 17 non-splenic MZLs (seven nodal, 10 extranodal) by gene expression profiling to distinguish between subtypes and determine their cell of origin. Our findings suggest biological inter-relatedness of these entities despite occurrence at different locations and associations with possibly different aetiologies. Furthermore, the expression profiles of non-splenic MZL were similar to memory B cells.

Similarities and differences between physician and non-physician acupuncturists in using diagnostic methods - an explorative study

Purpose: Acupuncture is one of the complementary medicine therapies with the greatest demand in Switzerland and many other countries in the West and in Asia. Over the past decades, the pool of scientific literature in acupuncture has markedly increased. The diagnostic methods upon which acupuncture treatment is based, have only been addressed sporadically in scientific journals. The goal of this study is to assess the use of different diagnostic methods in the acupuncture practices and to investigate similarities and differences in using these diagnostic methods between physician and non-physician acupuncturists. Methods: 44 physician acupuncturists with certificates of competence in acupuncture – traditional chinese medicine (TCM) from ASA (Assoziation Schweizer Ärztegesellschaften für Akupunktur und Chinesische Medizin: the Association of Swiss Medical Societies for Acupuncture and Chinese Medicine) and 33 non-physician acupuncturists listed in the EMR (Erfahrungsmedizinisches Register: a national register, which assigns a quality label for CAM therapists in complementary and alternative medicine) in the cantons Basel-Stadt and Basel-Land were asked to fill out a questionnaire on diagnostic methods. The responder rate was 46.8% (69.7% non-physician acupuncturists and 29, 5% physician acupuncturists). Results: The results show that both physician and non-physician acupuncturists take patients’ medical history (94%), use pulse diagnosis (89%), tongue diagnosis (83%) and palpation of body and ear acupuncture points (81%) as diagnostic methods to guide their acupuncture treatments. Between the two groups, there were significant differences in the diagnostic tools being used. Physician acupuncturists do examine their patients significantly more often with western medical methods (p<.05) than this is the case for nonphysician acupuncturists. Non-physician acupuncturists use pulse diagnosis more often than physicians (p<.05). A highly significant difference was observed in the length of time spent with collecting patients’ medical history, where nonphysician acupuncturists clearly spent more time (p<.001). Conclusion: Depending on the educational background of the acupuncturist, different diagnostic methods are used for making the diagnosis. Especially the more time consuming methods like a comprehensive anamnesis and pulse diagnosis are more frequently employed by non-physician practitioners. Further studies will clarify if these results are valid for Switzerland in general, and to what extent the differing use of diagnostic methods has an impact on the diagnosis itself and on the resulting treatment methods, as well as on the treatment success and the patients’ satisfaction.

Pediatric and adult eosinophilic esophagitis: similarities and differences

Early in the 1990s, several case series described adults suffering from dysphagia and children with refractory reflux symptoms, both accompanied by an eosinophil-predominant infiltration, thereby conclusively distinguishing it from gastroesophageal reflux disease. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) was recognized as its own entity in the adult and in the pediatric literature. In the last decade, evidence has accumulated that EoE represents a T-helper (Th)2-type inflammatory disease. Remodeling of the esophagus is a hallmark of EoE, leading to esophageal dysfunction and bolus impaction. Familial occurrence and disease association with single-nucleotide polymorphisms underscore the influence of genetics in this disease. Eosinophilic esophagitis may affect individuals at any age, although the clinical presentation is highly age dependent. There is a significant allergic bias in the EoE population, with the majority of patients having concurrent allergic rhinitis, asthma, eczema, and/or a history of atopy. One noteworthy difference is that in children, EoE seems to be primarily a food antigen-driven disease, whereas in adults, mainly aeroallergen sensitization has been observed. Treatment modalities for EoE include the 3Ds: drugs, diet, and dilation. The crucial question of whether adult and pediatric EoE are different phenotypes of one single entity or whether we are confronted with two different diseases is still open. Here, we review similarities and differences between EoE in adults and children.

Differences and similarities between spontaneous dissections of the internal carotid artery and the vertebral artery

Background and Purpose—To compare potential risk factors, clinical symptoms, diagnostic delay, and 3-month outcome between spontaneous internal carotid artery dissection (sICAD) and spontaneous vertebral artery dissection (sVAD). Methods—We compared patients with sICAD (n=668) and sVAD (n=302) treated in 3 university hospitals. Results—Patients with sICAD were older (46.3±9.6 versus 42.0±10.2 years; P<0.001), more often men (62.7% versus 53.0%; P=0.004), and presented more frequently with tinnitus (10.9% versus 3.4%; P<0.001) and more severe ischemic strokes (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, 10±7.1 versus 5±5.9; P<0.001). Patients with sVAD had more often bilateral dissections (15.2% versus 7.6%; P<0.001) and were more often smokers (36.0% versus 28.7%; P=0.007). Thunderclap headache (9.2% versus 3.6%; P=0.001) and neck pain were more common (65.8% versus 33.5%; P<0.001) in sVAD. Subarachnoid hemorrhage (6.0% versus 0.6%; P<0.001) and ischemic stroke (69.5% versus 52.2%; P<0.001) were more frequent in sVAD. After multivariate analysis, sex difference lost its significance (P=0.21), and all other variables remained significant. Time to diagnosis was similar in sICAD and sVAD and improved between 2001 and 2012 compared with the previous 10-year period (8.0±10.5 days versus 10.7±13.2 days; P=0.004). In sVAD, favorable outcome 3 months after ischemic stroke (modified Rankin Scale, 0–2: 88.8% versus 58.4%; P<0.001), recurrent transient ischemic attack (4.8% versus 1.1%; P=0.001), and recurrent ischemic stroke (2.8% versus 0.7%; P=0.02) within 3 months were more frequent. Conclusions—sICAD and sVAD patients differ in many aspects. Future studies should perform separate analyses of these 2 entities.

Similarities in the Subgingival Microbiota Assessed by a Curet Sampling Method at Sites With Chronic Periodontitis

Background: The goal of this study was to determine whether site-specific differences in the subgingival microbiota could be detected by the checkerboard method in subjects with periodontitis. Methods: Subjects with at least six periodontal pockets with a probing depth (PD) between 5 and 7 mm were enrolled in the study. Subgingival plaque samples were collected with sterile curets by a single-stroke procedure at six selected periodontal sites from 161 subjects (966 subgingival sites). Subgingival bacterial samples were assayed with the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method identifying 37 species. Results: Probing depths of 5, 6, and 7 mm were found at 50% (n = 483), 34% (n = 328), and 16% (n = 155) of sites, respectively. Statistical analysis failed to demonstrate differences in the sum of bacterial counts by tooth type (P = 0.18) or specific location of the sample (P = 0.78). With the exceptions of Campylobacter gracilis (P <0.001) and Actinomyces naeslundii (P <0.001), analysis by general linear model multivariate regression failed to identify subject or sample location factors as explanatory to microbiologic results. A trend of difference in bacterial load by tooth type was found for Prevotella nigrescens (P <0.01). At a cutoff level of >/=1.0 x 10(5), Porphyromonas gingivalis and Tannerella forsythia (previously T. forsythensis) were present at 48.0% to 56.3% and 46.0% to 51.2% of sampled sites, respectively. Conclusions: Given the similarities in the clinical evidence of periodontitis, the presence and levels of 37 species commonly studied in periodontitis are similar, with no differences between molar, premolar, and incisor/cuspid subgingival sites. This may facilitate microbiologic sampling strategies in subjects during periodontal therapy.

The pharmacokinetic profile of fesoterodine: similarities and differences to tolterodine

BACKGROUND: Fesoterodine is a new antimuscarinic agent developed for the treatment of overactive bladder. Fesoterodine itself is inactive and is rapidly and extensively converted by ubiquitous esterases to its principal active moiety, 5-hydroxymethyl tolterodine (5-HMT). 5-HMT is formed via biotransformation of both fesoterodine and tolterodine, albeit by different metabolising enzymes, viz. esterases and CYP2D6 respectively. Tolterodine is a potent muscarinic receptor antagonist and has been used for the treatment of overactive bladder for over ten years. The objective of this study was to establish the pharmacokinetic profile of fesoterodine and to highlight ist potential pharmacokinetic advantages over tolterodine. DESIGN: Single-centre, open-label, randomised, 4-way crossover study in a total of 24 healthy male volunteers. Single oral doses of 4, 8, or 12 mg fesoterodine were administered after an overnight fast. In addition, the 8 mg dose was also administered after a standard high-fat and high-calorie breakfast. Blood and urine samples for the analysis of 5-HMT were collected before and multiple times after drug administration for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: The mean peak plasma concentration (Cmax) of 5-HMT and the mean area under the time versus concentration curve (AUC) increased proportionally with the fesoterodine dose. These two parameters were some 2-fold higher in CYP2D6 poor metabolisers, whereas the time to peak plasma concentration (tmax) and half life (t1/2) were not influenced by the dose or the CYP2D6 metaboliser status. If fesoterodine was taken following a high-fat breakfast, we observed small increases in Cmax and AUC. In spite of these modest genetic influences and food effects on the pharmacokinetics of fesoterodine, the overall interindividual variability in Cmax levels was relatively little compared to previously published reports using tolterodine. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the esterase-mediated cytochrome P450-independent formation of 5-HMT and involvement of multiple metabolic and renal excretion pathways in the elimination of 5-HMT, the effects of patient-intrinsic and -extrinsic factors on the pharmacokinetics of fesoterodine are only modest, with some 2-fold higher 5-HMT exposure. Therefore, in contrast to tolterodine, no reduction of fesoterodine dosage is required under conditions of reduced elimination. In most cases of drug interaction or renal/hepatic impairment, the fesoterodine dose may be increased to 8 mg/day based on individual patients' response, or patients may be required to remain at the initial recommended dose of 4 mg/day.

Intervals for the assessment of measurement agreement: Similarities, differences, and consequences of incorrect interpretations

Several intervals have been proposed to quantify the agreement of two methods intended to measure the same quantity in the situation where only one measurement per method and subject is available. The limits of agreement are probably the most well-known among these intervals, which are all based on the differences between the two measurement methods. The different meanings of the intervals are not always properly recognized in applications. However, at least for small-to-moderate sample sizes, the differences will be substantial. This is illustrated both using the width of the intervals and on probabilistic scales related to the definitions of the intervals. In particular, for small-to-moderate sample sizes, it is shown that limits of agreement and prediction intervals should not be used to make statements about the distribution of the differences between the two measurement methods or about a plausible range for all future differences. Care should therefore be taken to ensure the correct choice of the interval for the intended interpretation.